Events Books

An excellent, tell-it-like-is book about the mass media. It didn't receive nearly enough attention from reviewers or the general public. A couple of years ago, I planned on requiring my journalism students to read it but then found out it had just gone out of print. It should be reprinted.

I enjoyed this book because I have long believed that we live in a "Culture of Lies" and modern journalism is one of the powerful contributors to the broader phenomenon. However, I disagree with the reviewer that described the work as one of careful analysis and an argument against big business, and I thought the author missed a far larger issue...

Weaver's arguments for the failure of modern journalism are persuasive, for sure, and he provides excellent historical context for how journalism has evolved from an objective, subscriber-driven presentation of news to the advertising-driven, editorialized news we have today (written in a style that pretends to objectivity but is anything but). However, Weaver's prescriptions reminded me of political platitudes in presenting a long list of "we shoulds" without a strong argument for why any of it is likely to happen or a persuasive road map of how to make it happen.

Weaver describes himself as a classical liberal, so one would not assume that he would impose change upon journalism through regulation, but why corporations would voluntarily switch their business models and change their editorial policies at the risk of making their products more boring just escapes me. More importantly, Weaver's book ignores (in his defense, probably on purpose) the other side of the "Culture of Lying" problem: why the demand for entertainment seems to exceed the demand for truth.

I would argue that we all know that our journalists impose their opinions upon the news without declaring their biases, just as we expect our politicians and our corporate leaders to spin information to their advantage without any disclaimers. Even in polite cocktail conversation, we have all become masters of reducing complex issues down to urbane soundbites and ascerbic witticisms--because there appears to be only one thing more criminal today than shading the truth and that is, apparently, to be boring. The more clever the soundbite, the more outrageous the headline, the more ridiculous the political platitude, the more we like it and the more life an idea takes on. Whether the underlying presumption is true or not is rarely challenged, in real-time, because (a) we don't have time, (b) to do so would destroy the rhythm of the conversation, or (c) we are so cynical that we don't assume anyone is telling the whole truth anyway and therefore don't care one way or the other.

Weaver's book is good because he provides excellent insider insight into how the news is determined and presented, but he fails to address why we all just eat it up anyway. The implication by omission is that the public is stupid (or tragically innocent) and therefore it is up to journalism to reform itself out of the goodness of its heart and for the betterment of humankind (because Weaver would not likely support coerced change). I don't think this is likely.

The more fundamental question would have been WHY we all choose entertainment over truth as the chief value we seek from journalism. With the internet and cable-driven proliferation of news sources and dilution of "brand integrity" that used to help us separate propaganda from truth, what can we do to put a stake in the culture of lies other than to become (and teach our children to become) better critical thinkers? Weaver's book describes a sad phenonemon from an entertaining, insider's point of view--but his analysis covers only the supply side of bad journalism.

In my opinion, this book starts strong and ends kind of weak, but it is definitely worth reading for anyone who wants some inside scoop on how the news really works. Buy this book.

An excellent, tell-it-like-is book about the mass media. It didn't receive nearly enough attention from reviewers or the general public. A couple of years ago, I planned on requiring my journalism students to read it but then found out it had just gone out of print. It should be reprinted.

Paul Weaver uses rich ethnographic material and careful analysis to craft another clear picture of how big business fails America - news is largely a "front stage performance" (to borrow a phrase from Irving Goffman) that reflects little of what is actually going on. This excellent piece of participant observation research is equally revealing of the Corporate system of control based on editocracy, worker selection and socialization.

Paul Weaver's "Suicidal Corporation" (1988) was the first ethnography of the rhetoric of corporations that usurps the language of free market economics in order to disguise the fact that they are in reality creations of the state, and as such, behave just as bureaucratically as their parent; such is the nature of government. Further, a government-generated competitive business cycle is not a free market. We are being duped, and Weaver knows it.

Weaver's "News and the Culture of Lying" is a further investigation into why corporations pay lip service to free enterprise but practice big government, and how they pull that off.

Both of Weaver's books will interest any student of sociology or anthropology. His ethnographic case studies are good examples of doing the ethnography of corporations.

Lastly, Weaver's books deserve a place on everyone's shelf alongside George Orwell's "1984" and a DVD of "Fahrenheit 451".

I am a little behind in my reading, but I have been thinking about this text and feel that No Debate challenges the status quo, but additionally, has already influenced the shape of current debates. UTube has found a presence not seen before and multimedia will continue to reinvent modern elections. What I particularly liked about the book (I am not done) is the author's suggested action items. This book does not whine and leave us wondering "what should we do?". Instead, Farah offers intelligent alternatives and I believe we are seeing some of this put into motion already. What will be next for the this author?

George Farah writes about the current organization that orchestrates the Presidential debates, including its history and the details of how it operates. According to Farah, the Commission on Presidential Debates is not the nonpartisan organization it claims to be, but instead is a bipartisan, corporate sponsored front for the Republican and Democratic parties controlled by the campaigns of the Republican and Democratic nominees. The author points out in great detail the hypocrisies, lies, and manipulations the two parties, the Commission members, and the campaigns engage in to maintain the domination of the two major parties in the debates. He concludes his book by presenting the formation of the Citizens' Debate Commission and the principles under which this new Commission would operate. To those who are interested in how our political system operates and how we might improve it, this book not only offers insight, it offers an alternative to the current system which is a blight on a free and democratic society. The book includes two appendices. The first is a document from the 1996 presidential campaign entitled 'Memorandum of Understanding' which is the agreement reached between the Clinton and Dole campaigns as to all the particulars of how the debate will be conducted. These memorandums are rubber stamped by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The second appendix is a press release from the Democratic and Republican parties indicating the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. This document is replete with a lot of civic high mindedness for the formation of this organization which in reality serves the two major parties and not the interests of the American electorate.

This is a must read for anyone who has found American politics to be oddly and uncomfortably narrow. Have you ever wondered why you don't get to see some of the candidates you want see, like Perot, Nader, and Buchanan? Have you ever wondered why you don't hear about some critical issues, like free trade, government waste, immigration, child poverty, and media concentration? Have you ever wondered why you only hear a series of boring, memorized soundbites, rather than actual discussion between the candidates? In this book, No Debate, George Farah shows just how the Republican and Democratic candidates secretly collude to control, manipulate, and ultimately ruin the most important public forum for the education of the American people - the presidential debates. The presidential debates are the gatekeeper to the election, and when you keep candidates and issues out of the debates, you keep them out of American politics. Farah's book is a truly fascinating exposé of the major party candidates' behind-the-scenes manipulation of the debates, replete with stunning quotes and entertaining anecdotes. Did you know that Perot was included in the 1992 presidential debates because President Bush - who ultimately blamed Perot for costing him the election -- demanded that Perot be included? The book reads with remarkable clarity and refreshing speed, and ends with a proposal for reform that is, in fact, being pushed by leading conservative, liberal, and centrist civic leaders. If you care about democracy and you're tired of being deceived, No Debate is a must read.

Remember that totally boring debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000? Why so much agreeing with each other, why was there no REAL debate going on? Well this book takes that issue head on, and it's about time someone did. These debates are shown for what they truly are, which is orchestrated soundbites. The two party duopoly has monopilized this venue so that other parties/issues cannot invade their control of the subjects and issues of the election.

Mark my words: if this control of the debate continues than less and less voters will show up to the booths. And also, if John Kerry is stupid enough to agree to a protocol for the debate as was done in debates past, he will certainly lose the election because you have to catch George W. Bush off gaurd to see what he's really made of.

Lysander Spooner's trenchent essay titled NO TREASON: THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY is reason to think about constitutional rights, authority, the legal system vs. natural law, etc. Spooner who was a learned jurist, abolitionist, business man, and "gadfly" to the powers that be before and after this and other essays were written. His comments on the relationship between poltical leaders and the hidden actual "powers behind the throne" are serious comments that thoughtful Americans should carefully consider.

Spooner thought that the Constitution had no binding authority based on the laws of contract, association, and due process. Spooner stated that those who ratified the Constitution had no authority to bind posterity to the document since these men could not get suceeding generations to sign or agree to a contract. Spooner argued that these men expressed a hope and a sentiment rather than any iron-clad contract. Spooner stated that in a legal case of contract, a plantiff could not enforce a judgement against a civil defendant if the defendant's name was not signed to a contract. The U.S. Constitution which was ratified in 1787 could not possibly be contractually binding on future generations. Spooner also used the example of a corporations whose members signed contracts to create these institutions. However, once the original individuals died, the corporation died with them them unless successors agreed to continue the corportation by SIGNED written contract.

Spooner also makes a good case of any political document actually representing the "people." Estimates are that during the first three-quaters of the 19th. century, between one-tenth and one-twentieth of the U.S. population were elgible to vote, and yet even fewer of elgible voters actually voted. Spooner was clear that this is not representing "the people." Spooner was aware that voting was supposed to select the best men for government posts. Yet, voting was too often a self defense motive against those who may vote against one's interests.

Spooner further stated that Article I Paragraph 6 protected U.S. Representatives and Senators from arrest except except for treason, felony,etc. Yet, U.S. Senators and Representatives could meet in secret sessions, "behind closed doors," and in seclusion to make poltical deals that could make any ordinary citizen subject to arrest and trial for criminal conspiracy. Yet, the privledged members of the U.S. Congress were made immune to such legal sanctions. The same could be said for members of state legislatures. Who is the judge of unjust legislation and congressional action? Spooner is clear that appointed federal judges are the final arbiters who rarely overturn such unjust laws. Members of the U.S. Congress are seldom held accountable, and the impeachment and removal from office procedures are so awkward and slow as to be of little or no avial.

Spooner also makes the connection between wealthy interests and the government (any government). Governments borrow huge sums from these interests at extremly high interest rates and use armed force to pay for these loans via taxes. Yet, the lenders sometimes bet on a losing cause. One footnote reminds readers that the French banking house of Erlanger loaned huge sums to the Confederacy who lost the U.S. Civil War. Another example mentioned were the loans made by the Rothchilds to the Hapsburgs in 1866, and the Hapsburgs lost a war with the Prussians so quickly that the war is known as The Seven Weeks War.

There is an interesting comment in this collection of essays that Spooner started a private mail company called the Amercian Letter Mail Company in 1845 which competed successfully with the U.S. Postal Service until The American Mail Letter Company was voted out of existence. There is an interesting comment that Spooner's short-lived business was successful. Stamp collectors do not consider the stamps very valuable because so many are available which implies a good business volume.

Spooner's legal and political thinking are not outdated when one considers the concentrations of power in the U.S. Spooner made the remark that those who swear to uphold the U.S. Constituion have not read it. Whatever Spooner's criticisms of the U.S. Constitution were, they pale into insignificance given the arbitrary use of political power since Post Civil War history. Yet, Spooner's essay and the footnotes to this collection are a reminder of what thoughtful men considered. This reviewer was told that these essays have been used in law schools which may be help some jurists and attorneys put the brakes on arbitrary political actions. This reviewer is reminded of the phony publicity given to some poltical hacks who extolled their Contract with American. When asked about whether if this applied to this reviewer, the answer was "No,where did I sign it and who authorized anyone to speak on my behalf?"

. We would be amiss to state the pamphlet as redundant upon a single reading. It sounded quite repetitive to me the first time I read it. But, when I tried to summarize the theme, I found that the points Spooner makes include several distinct areas of discussion. And, it builds to a climax. He ultimately points out the real rulers of this country, "... these soulless blood-money loan-mongers... And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of both the North and the South."
. Spooner repeats in places for emphasis, but the thread of his argument sweeps on through the various objections that one might raise along his route.
. If you think it repeats, try to outline it. You'll find that each section presents his point in another light.
. As a matter of fact, any attempt to state the theme in a paragraph would lower it to a statement of personal opinion rather than the masterful essay which it is.

Dan Marks
Republic of Texas
.

This is certainly a different way to look at an American citizen's relationship to society, the US Government, and the Constitution of the United States. I find it brilliant, if a bit redundant by the end. Spooner applies all of the various tests to which a lawyer submits a contract, to the relationship between citizen and Constitution. If you buy the precept that this is a pseudo-contractual relationship, then you will find that it is, as Spooner puts it, a "Constitution of no authority."

If you feel that this is not a contract, or that it is some sort of special contract, well then this book will probably just bore and/or annoy you. I am not sure how to understand the Constitution, or my participation in a tacit social contract, and found this book entirely compelling and wonderful. I buy many copies and hand them out to my long-suffering friends.

It has been said in other places that Spooner raises a rather obscure point regarding the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution. This point of view now writes him out of the history books. Another writer describes this particular work as the single most subversive piece ever written in the United States -- an opinion shared by those who are narrow-minded about giving up their individual liberty.

If the Constitution has no authority, what does? Is it power, like might making right, that controls and restrains our liberties? Or is it the individual, who must live under the rules of the coercive collective, through ballot counts of a minority of the population, the "voters"?

And if the Constitution does have authority, does that authority include authorizing our government to abuse our rights as citizens and as people?

Spooner notes in his opening, speaking of the original writers of the Constitution, "If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not 'to secure to them the blessings of liberty,' but to make slaves of them; for if their 'posterity' are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers." So starts the essay.

Destroying all support for voting by secret ballot, for voluntarily paying taxes, for respecting elected officials (members of a "secret band of robbers and murderers"), for recognizing treaties, for giving oaths to support the Constitution, etc, etc,... the essay makes all common wisdom built upon our accepted, politically correct fallacies collapse under the weight of our own reason.

If you ever read this book, remember... our rights are not granted by government; rather, we institute government to protect our rights.

This book contains the early texts of the founders of the council communist movement. Council Communism is the only true form of communism that contains within it the entire historical movement towards real communism based upon Marx. It started out as a reaction against the statist excesses of the state-capitalist Leninist party worshippers, but grew to become the only real workers opposition to State and Late Capitalism. While I wish that a few extra texts were included this text is a great start. In the meanwhile let us take up the banner of councilism and proclaim a communism based neither on party or state.

This book is invaluable because it has writings from the historic ultra-left/council communists/left communists; Marxist currents which have been overshadowed by the more historically prominent Marxist-Leninist tendencies. More importantly, this book is also an English-language introduction for a US population that probably knows nothing about council/left communism but supposedly knows everything about capital-C "communism" (thanks in no small part to xenophobes such as Joseph McCarthy). Such a development is sad given that the US has been no stranger to class struggle, nor has it not been a home for its very own ultra-left (the Industrial Workers of the World. Red and Black Publishers also has a book of collected IWW writings for sale). May "Non-Leninist Marxism: Writings on the Worker's Councils" contribute to the fight against this ignorance!

Speaking for myself, reading the book has been a salutary experience. I've only begun studying the Marxian critique of political economy, and this compilation has helped me keep in mind *why* I'm opposed to capitalism in its fundamentals.

Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in disgrace, the Left has been looking for an alternative model of socialism. This book reminds us that even before the Russian Revolution, there already was an alternative, the council communist movement. Instead of a centralized party, the council communists favored decentralized political organization. Instead of a police dictatorship, the council communists favored mass democracy. Instead of centrally planned economics, the council communists favored a voluntary association of self-managed producers. Instead of Russian imperialism, the council communists favored international cooperation.

The council communists, like so many others, were stomped out of existence by the Leninist dictatorships. This book presents, through several works by the most well-known council communists, a view of the alterative model of democratic revolutionary socialism that the Leninists destroyed.

This is an important and well selected of writings by some of the leading figures in the Council Communist tendency of revolutionary Marxism. Most of the writings included in this volume have been largely unavailable in print for some time and their return to publication is an extremely welcome development.

The books leads off with Hermann Gorter's Open Letter to Comrade Lenin, which is a powerful response to Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and also include's Gorter's arguments for the founding of the (original) 4th international, the Communist Workers' International. After Sylvia Pankhurst's primer on the nature of post-revolutionary society, the book concludes with Otto Ruhle's Revolution is Not a Party Affair on the importance of focus on the economic organization of the working class, not merely for reforms of traditional trade unionism, but as a vehicle for revolutionary action and, finally, with the letter from Ruhle to his comrades in the KAPD written from Russia, after deciding to not participate in the third congress of the Comintern. The latter work is an excellent note to end on, providing an inside glimpse into the cynical opportunism into which the Russian Communists were swiftly degenerating, while displaying the unbending revolutionary resolve and tremendous depth of courage the council communists displayed in confronting these developments.

There are two minor disappointments here, however, including the selections offered from Anton Pannekoek. One would have liked to have seen his later work The Workers' Councils, as well as his excellent Lenin As Philosopher. The other disappointment being the lack of any writings from Paul Mattick, who became the leading voice of council communism after the death of Pannekoek for most of the 20th Century.

So very few books could boast truly world-changing ideas like this one. The effects of Ghandi's teachings have of course spread far beyond the struggles in South Africa and India to the civil rights movement in the US and more. Non-violence has never been weighed and found wanting, it has been weighed, found difficult and ignored. But, in the end, the way that looks easier, the way of violence, is the truly hard path to follow. What seems the longest road is not necessarily the most difficult to travel. We all need to review Ghandi from time to time and regain that other path away from self-destruction.

I loved this book from cover to cover. It's an amazing story of one man's non-violent battle against the food-arazzi. Okay, truth be told, I skimmed through the first half but the part where Gandhi went on the hunger strike was a total inspiration to me and my Pro Ana group. Gandhi lived his life just like we do...but he did it first! He knew about the evils of food long before it was popular to say so. He starved so that we may starve too. If you ask me Gandhi was like the American Jesus. I think he wore sandals too!! And that's what make him a REAL American hero!!!

P.S. If you get too hungry you can eat this book. LOL. Kidding. Don't eat ANYTHING! EVER!

I learned a great deal from Mahatma Gandhiji (1869-1948) by reading NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE. This book is a collection of articles written at the hand of Gandhiji for the magazines "Young India" and "Harijan". In addition, there are some interviews. The term Satyagraha was authored by Gandhiji to describe the process of non-violent resistance. Satyagraha has as its goal reform. It requires a great deal of discipline on the part of the participants. It also requires an opponent that is capable of reform. I have been applying what I have learned from this book in an attempt to reform myself. If you are interested in the life of Mahatma Gandhiji, or in the process of non-violent resistance, this book will be interesting to you.

I liked this book because it makes Gandhi's ideas concrete and specific. He talks about how to handle specific situations, and explains his thinking - for example, his view of picketing. Specific examples of how to handle specific situations give you more insight into what non-violent resistence and non-cooperation really mean as applied to real life situations. After reading this book, you have a much better sense of how to apply Gandhi's ideas, versus just an overview of his ideas as abstraction.

Prof Paige as a Korea War veteran had killed but in repentance has taken it upon himself to campaign for nonkilling, hoping that his soft voice of experience would speak louder than the thundering voice of arrogance...
...the book could have gained a wider appeal if it was titled Nonkilling Global Politics instead of Nonkilling Global Political Science because while many are interested in politics, few see political science as a field that is struggling to survive in the face of the litany of "unthinkables" in human socio-political and economic organisation. But Paige was writing mainly for political scientists and other social scientists, a number of whom are in dire need of liberation from the bondage of those unthinkables.
...It is certainly not a "fast food" book written to give the author a sense of belonging in the publish or perish world but one meticulously crafted to challenge humanity, not just political scientists in ivory towers, to turn the captivity of human lethality. Little wonder it has received favourable comments from Nobel laureates, leading peace activists and notable academics. The cover is beautiful, with a "Take up and read" appeal.

Glenn Paige's book, "Nonkilling Global Political Science" is one of the most thought-provoking works I have read in recent years. It makes a strong argument for an urgently needed paradigm-shift in political science. Paige shows that both violence-accepting politics and political science in the
twentieth century have failed to supress violence by violent means. He lays out a new theoretical and methodlogical framework which is both humanist and practical. Brilliantly reasoned, the book charts out a wide range of actions in global problem-solving and institution building through the
power of non violence. A profoundly original work and wonderful tonic. Strongly recommended.

Nonkilling Global Political Science offers a new dimension to the study of the discipline. Clear and comprehensive, the discussion is readily accessible to the general reader and resonant for the specialist in social science, as an indispensable reference for courses in political theory and strategic nonviolence.
Michael True
Emeritus Professor of English, Assumption College
and
President, International Peace Research Association Foundation

In this exceptional book, lucid and well-written, Professor Paige brings to bear both his exceptional abilities as social and political scientist and his passionate concerns about violence in the human condition.
The net result is a powerful critique of political science as a discipline, and a detailed road-map for the pursuit of a seemingly impossible goal: a nonkilling world. Paige thinks that it is possible and makes a powerful case in support of that view.

If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the socialist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of the writings of James P. Cannon that was published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the 1970's. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important American Communist.

In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon's leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? This certainly is the period of Cannon's political maturation, especially after his long collaboration working with Trotsky. The period under discussion- from the 1920's when he was a leader of the American Communist Party to the red-baiting years after World War II- started with his leadership of the fight against the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and then later against those who no longer wanted to defend the gains of the Russian Revolution despite the Stalinist degeneration of that revolution. Cannon won his spurs in those fights and in his struggle to orient those organizations toward a revolutionary path. One thing is sure- in his prime which includes this period- Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so. That he never had an opportunity to lead a revolution is his personal tragedy and ours as well.

I note here that among socialists, particularly the non-Stalinist socialists of those days, there was controversy on what to do and, more importantly, what forces socialists should support. If you want to find a more profound response initiated by revolutionary socialists to the social and labor problems of those days than is evident in today's leftist responses to such issues Cannon's writings here will assist you. I draw your attention to the early part of the book when Cannon led the Communist-initiated International Labor Defense (ILD) most famously around the fight to save the anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti here in Massachusetts. That campaign put the Communist Party on the map for many workers and others unfamiliar with the party's work. For my perspective the early class-war prisoner defense work was exemplary.

The issue of class-war prisoners is one that is close to my heart. I support the work of the Partisan Defense Committee, Box 99 Canal Street Station, New York, N.Y 10013, an organization which traces its roots and policy to Cannon's ILD. That policy is based on an old labor slogan- `An injury to one is an injury to all' therefore I would like to write a few words here on Cannon's conception of the nature of the work. As noted above, Cannon (along with Max Shachtman and Martin Abern and Cannon's long time companion Rose Karsner who would later be expelled from American Communist Party for Trotskyism with him and who helped him form what would eventually become the Socialist Workers Party) was assigned by the party in 1925 to set up the American section of the International Red Aid known here as the International Labor Defense.

It is important to note here that Cannon's selection as leader of the ILD was insisted on by the International Workers of the World (IWW) because of his pre-war association with that organization and with the prodding of "Big Bill' Haywood, the famous labor organizer exiled in Moscow. Since many of the militants still languishing in prison were anarchists or syndicalists this selection was important. The ILD's most famous early case was that of the heroic anarchist workers, Sacco and Vanzetti. The lessons learned in that campaign show the way forward in class-war prisoner defense.

I believe it was Trotsky who noted that, except in the immediate pre-revolutionary and during revolutionary periods the tasks of militants revolve around the struggle to win democratic and other partial demands. The case of class-war legal defense falls in that category with the added impetus of getting the prisoners back into the battle as quickly as possible. The task then is to get them out of prison by mass action for their release. Without going into the details of the Sacco and Vanzetti case the two workers had been awaiting execution for a number of years and had been languishing in jail. As is the nature of death penalty cases various appeals on various grounds were tried and failed and they were then in imminent danger of execution.

Other forces outside the labor movement were also interested in the case based on obtaining clemency, reduction of sentence to life imprisonment or a new trial. The ILD's position was to try to win their release by mass action- demonstrations and strikes and other forms of mass mobilization. This strategy obviously also included in a subordinate position any legal strategies such as the above which might be helpful to win their freedom. In this effort the stated goal of the organization was to organize non-sectarian class defense but also not to rely on the legal system alone portraying it as a simple miscarriage of justice. The organization publicized the case worldwide, held conferences, demonstrations and strikes on behalf of Sacco and Vanzetti. Although the campaign was not successful and the pair were executed in 1927 it stands as a model for class war prisoner defense. Needless to say, the names Sacco and Vanzetti continue to be honored to this day wherever militants fight against this system.

I also suggest a close look at Cannon's articles in the early 1950's. Some of them are solely of historical interest around the effects of the red purges on the organized labor movement at the start of the Cold War. Others, however, around health insurance, labor standards, the role of the media and the separation of church and state read as if they were written in 2006. That's a sorry statement to have to make today any way one looks at it.

This is a wonderful collection of articles written for the socialist press over more than thirty years, and masterful examples of sharp writing that clarifies, educates and inspires.

Cannon writes from the midst of workers' struggles, from the international defense campaigns to defend victims of capitalist frame-ups, to the powerful strikes of truck drivers, seamen and other workers in the 1930s, from the bloody upheaval of World War II to the subsequent wars of colonial conquest Washington waged in Korea and Southeast Asia. Some of his pieces are biting exposes of the hypocrisy and brutality of capitalist society; others take on big questions of leadership and organization posed to working class activists striving to form militant trade unions and revolutionary political parties.

I found particularly compelling Cannon's observations on the character and lives of the many militants and leaders of workers struggles he knew and worked with over decades, including Eugene Debs, Big Bill Haywood, Frank Little, Sacco and Vanzetti. And as a counterpart, his biting analysis of labor bureaucrats, and the cops, courts, politicians and bosses of the capitalist class who strive so hard to keep workers enslaved in their profit-driven society.

Cannon paints vivid pictures of people like his friend Frank Little'a Native American who was lynched after World War I for being an anti-imperialist and a labor organizer. After reading Cannon's tribute, Little became one of my heroes. He is a good hero, too--especially today when racist thugs (often with a badge) are targeting Blacks, immigrants and others. These brief journalistic glimpses show that Cannon knew how to write as well as he knew how to fight. Sacco and Vanzetti, Charlie Chaplin, Hiroshima and Jim Crow are among the many topics. But the moral courage of working class fighters in a capitalist world--some fighters, well-known, others totally obscure--this is Cannon's primary theme

This is an expanded collection of the popular journalistic writing of James P. Cannon the founding leader of the American communist movement who stood up to Stalinism and founded the movement that became the Socialist Workers Party. These articles span the pre W.W.I struggles of the International Workers of the World, the revolutionary trade unionism of the Minneapolis Strikes of the 1930s, to the struggle against the 1950s McCarthyism. What shines in this collection is both Cannon's wit, and his wisdom, as well as his ability to communicate on the level of pure human feeling as well as objective politics in his "smaller" pieces like his movie reviews, reaction to the death of a fighter, reactions to advances in science. This is a the kind of book to put at your beside and read an article every day for the joy of reading it, as well as the political lessons.

Dr. Caravelli is most certainly an expert in understanding the seriousness and complexity of the nuclear threat we face. His candid and forthright style further increases the book's credibility. The structure and flow of the book allow the reader to fully grasp the overall severity of the situation while understanding the multifaceted contributing elements. It is also eminently readable.

Notably the book goes beyond filling the need to understand the events that lead us to today's threats in its many dimensions. It sets the context of the critical challenges to contain and control nuclear stockpiles and nuclear proliferation and offers a realistic multistep solution to best mitigate the nuclear threat. This book is certainly an eye opener.

The author's expertise offers a clear understanding of the history and challenges facing the United States, as well as the world, in this age of "nuclear insecurity". His experience in the CIA, National Security Agency and Department of Energy certainly enables him to provide in-depth and comprehensive insights into this most pressing problem. More heed needs to be paid to both the analysis and insights presented.

As a current US Government employee, it's uplifting to see how Caravelli and other dedicated senior managers could navigate the bureaucratic barriers to "do the right thing". The chapters unfold to tell the story of forging policies to meet the nuclear insecurity challenges in the face of shortsighted decisions and managerial incompetence that are so often counterproductive to long-term solutions.

The book carries lessons that are clearly contemporary as inadequate control and the lack of effective security of nuclear materials compound the real and actual dangers of nuclear proliferation today. I recommend this book to those concerned with one of the greatest enduring threats to America, as well as Western civilization.

From a current US Government employee.

This book offers a combination of personal experiences and case studies related to nuclear and radiological proliferation. The insights that Jack Caravelli provides of the interactions, harmonious and acrimonious, of the various US agencies tasked with non-proliferation duties, illustrate how critical both personal and professional relationships are to progress. The description of the oversight of the US Department of Energy, by the Government Accountability Office, shows how carefully arranged mechanisms can be thwarted by obstruction and ineptitude. The two case studies address Pakistan and Iran, and are detailed and timely. They afford an historic overview and cover contemporary developments up to the point of publication. In addition, the case study of the critical international confrontation with Iran includes suggested solutions to ending the nuclear threat. This book is a useful addition to the literature on the risk of all forms of nuclear proliferation. It should be read by interested parties in both the US and Europe.

A thoughtful and well-researched effort, Dr. Caravelli presents an insider's view of the nonproliferation issues we currently face. Drawing on his years of service at the highlest levels of government, he paints a disturbing picture of what the future may hold. This book should be required reading for anyone interested in homeland security, counter-terrorism, and world politics.

Great read, it is sad that more attention has not been put on the book by various "news" programs. If authors like this one got 10% of the attention devoted to Paris we would be a much safer nation.

The author's strategy for dealing with the threat is one of the few true strategies rather than the usually proffered tactics.

Highly recommended. The book is also a reminder that every real capability to detect and thwart terrorist attempts increases the difficulty of the terrorist's task and reduces the probability of success.

This book sets forth what a finite band of non-supermen would have to do to mount an attack of nuclear terrorism. From this, it derives a systematic approach to making such an effort more difficult. The bottom line is that we can't make such an attack impossible, but most likely we can make it hard enough that they will try something else. After all, they have trade-offs, too. For example, the more skills they assemble, the harder it is to keep the operation secret. Not the final word, but a first class beginning, and a major contribution to the debate over the level of effort that should be expended to ward off a nuclear attack as opposed to other forms of terrorism.

Michael Levi offers a unique perspective on the fear that drives the American psyche and political process these days-----nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist. While many experts exploit that fear to support expensive programs to counter nuclear terrorism, Levi takes an analytical perspective which describes in detail the series of difficult challenges which terrorists must overcome in order to accomplish the ultimate nightmare. His perspective as a physicist provides technological information not often found in policy pundits' consideration of this critical national and international security issue. Levi presents such technical information in a readable, but sophisticated form which enlightens those who seek to know more about the types of nuclear materials and weapons that a terrorist might seek. Additional technical information about detection and characterization technologies is also incorporated into this highly informative study. Casual readers will also benefit from Levi's unique approach-----looking at nuclear terrorism through the eyes of a terrorist planner. His message is a realistic, but hopeful one-----that nuclear terrorism is not inevitable, particularly if policy makers allocate resources to the obstacles that could make the ultimate nightmare only a figment of the imagination. Very Highly Recommended

I bought this book after hearing the author on the radio. His perspective on nuclear terrorism is unexpected: we normally think that the terrorists must only succeed once, while security services must be effective every time.

But while that may be true in the broadest sense, the author points out that the terrorists have to succeed at every stage of the incredibly difficult process, while the police only need to catch them once. It's hard for terrorists to be good at everything they need to do: though they may procure bomb-making materials, they may not be very good at planting bombs (e.g. - the doctors who attempted to blow up Glasgow Airport, but left their car bombs parked in a no-parking zone.) On the other hand, it's possible for the police to be effective at every level, from monitoring so-called "loose nukes" to detecting radiation in ports to tracking suspicious movements in cities.

It was a revelation to read this book, because the analysis is far more reasoned and realistic than what's typically found in the media.

This is a classic, both for it's clarity and for its brevity(110 pages!). Strayer was a professor at Princeton and worked for the CIA on the side. In his book, "the invention of the middle ages", Norman Cantor describes his life as a graduate student at Princeton under Strayer. Apparently he was always running off to advise the government on one thing or another. It's an amusing thought.

Strayer's analysis is heavy on the bureaucratic development of france and england, light on everything else. Basically, he contrasts the centralist state of England with the "mosaic" state of France, and demonstrates how the heavy bureaucracy of france (and other contiental states of europe) can be attributed to the need of a weak central government to integrate provinces with their own "national" identities. This goal was accomplished by layering different sorts of councils and administrators on top of one another, with the King at the top.

This is contrasted with England, which functioned, in Strayer's mind as a "large french province", with the King at the top of an abbreviated hierarchy.

His institutional focus is on the development of law courts and the finance ministry- these were the first departments to come of age in the west. The law courts because the king's original power was as court of last resort, the finance ministry because... well, every prince needs money.

As the title says, this is a book about the state, not the nation. There is no mention of culture in here, so don't look for it.

This book, as is well known, is a small classic among history books on Medieval Europe since its publication in the early 19seventies. There is a clear and distinct approach of rational government building in 11-14th century England and France, and how the modern state has roots shaped by the lessons and experiences of that time. Although the treatise is short, it is very clearly and concisely written. Obviously, the writer has deep knowledge of what he is talking about, and reading the book gives a stong impression that there is much more behind the analysis that he gives. The idea of more-or-less rational institutional building of government functions in middle-to late Medieval times does leave out a lot of other human elements shaping human governance at that time, while i got a distinct impression of the smoothness of the whole process overall. This seems certainly very debatable. Nevertheless, perhaps the sharp focus is what makes the book so very clear, informative and enjoyable to read. A definite must for any serious Medieval history buff...

Strayer's depth of knowledge and simplicity of thought are seldom combined in books with a challenging thesis that is still debated today. For example, the recent President of the American Historical Associate(James J. Sheehan) presented a Presidential Address(AHR Feb.2006) that challenges Strayer's analysis of the origins of sovereignty in Western Europe and more than a few recent historians have criticized Strayer's Anglophile framework for analyzing the evolving types of governing entities found in France and England in the 1300's. Not bad for a book that is a little over 100 pages long and written nearly 40 years ago. A suberb example of concise and erudite scholarship!

The true mark of a genius is in developing an idea that, when put forth seems obvious, yet is an original idea. This book is Strayer's work of genius. Being so short, Strayer's book should be mandatory reading in the public school system. No one else has come close to explaining the unique origin of the state system in the modern West.